I appreciate Roddenberry's vision, except for the "no conflict" policy that TNG was shackled with. The old truism is "conflict equals drama," therefore no conflict means no drama, or, at least, weak, limited conflict between characters. Thankfully, DS9 wasn't constrained this way. "In The Pale Moonlight" has deep, rich conflict that challenges Sisko as a character, making for great drama. The episode deserves all the kudos it gets.

Click to expand...

I know TNG gets criticized for that a lot, but I thought the show actually made that idea work pretty well. The fact this was a crew of mature and professional officers who all respected and worked well together was a huge part of it's appeal, I think. And I wouldn't want them to be any other way.

If there was a problem with certain episodes, it was because of generally bad writing or a boring plot, not because of a lack of character conflict-- because there were certainly enough fantastic episodes that worked just fine without it.

If the Romulans found out the truth after the war (Which they had no real way of doing), it's possible they'd declare war, but it wouldn't be out of outrage and anger. It'd be because they wanted to anyway and this gives them a reason, and they would only do it if they thought they could win. Which there's no way they could because the Klingon High Council ended up with an extremely pro-Federation Chancellor.

Just like if the Romulans went to war in The Enemy it wouldn't have been because of the outrage of their dead pilot, it would be because they wanted to go to war and the dead pilot made them look like the victims.

The Dear Doctor comparison is the exact opposite of In The Pale Moonlight. In The Pale Moonlight was, go against principle to save trillions of lives. Dear Doctor was, allow billions of people to die on vague principle, and it was a principle that didn't even make sense.

And I've heard the TNG writers say that the 'No conflict' edict forced them to be more creative, because it prevented them from falling back on normal TV tropes.

I thought that the "no-conflict" approach to 24th-century Trek was a mistake on Gene Roddenberry's part. I just think it's unrealistic to expect that humanity will ever evolve to a point where there is no interpersonal conflict - certainly not in a mere few centuries.

However, I'm willing to give him a pass on it. Gene Roddenberry got a few things wrong with Trek, but they are far outweighed by all the things he got right.

People who criticise the Roddenberry vision frankly miss the point, and essentially the point of art (a TV show, especially a dramatic one, is still art by definition). No art form must absolutely correlate with reality, and to suggest as such is silly. I doubt the Great Bird, who was seemingly an intelligent man, believed his vision was reality. It is essentially a hope for the future, and to be taken in that context alone.

Click to expand...

I didn't have a problem with his vision of sunshine and lollipops and everyone working for their own enlightenment.

But from a purely story-telling POV, I think DS9 holds up moreso than TNG because there's conflicts from within the cast. More often than not on TNG their conflicts extend from external pressures; and while many are still better than much of what passes as television today, that whole model of "no internal conflicts" was going nowhere fast....even moreso with Voyager, where there weren't even good stories to make up for that.

I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.

Click to expand...

Sure there is. Sisko did some pretty crappy things in this episode, and they -should- weigh on him. But the "good" (if you want to call it that) of getting the help to win the war, outweighs the moral implications of how he accomplished it.

I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.

Click to expand...

Sure there is. Sisko did some pretty crappy things in this episode, and they -should- weigh on him. But the "good" (if you want to call it that) of getting the help to win the war, outweighs the moral implications of how he accomplished it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it "good" but necessary to draw the Romulans in before the scales tipped too far in favor of the Dominion.

Sisko has the cost of two lives plus whoever else suffered due to the bio-mimetic gel being given to someone who wanted it for "genetic experimentation" on his head.

I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.

Click to expand...

Sure there is. Sisko did some pretty crappy things in this episode, and they -should- weigh on him. But the "good" (if you want to call it that) of getting the help to win the war, outweighs the moral implications of how he accomplished it.

Click to expand...

that's not what a dilemma is. A dilemma is a situation with two relatively equal sides and no right decision. Sisko may have had to do things he didn't like, but he made the correct decision and Garak summed it all up rather well.

The moral of the story is, you're a noble fellow if when necessity forces you to commit a wrong against someone, you still feel bad, for a little while at least. But...

The necessity in the story is completely irrelevant to anything in real life, coming from the menace of bad SF figures like the Founders. Like the ticking bomb scenario, the enemy with impossible powers is a premise preselected for a desired conclusion, namely, sometimes you have to be immoral, or dead.

The plotting of how the criminal acts are supposed to save humanity is unbelievable to anyone who has thought about the role of intelligence in the decision to go to war. Again, this is a preselected premise, in this case designed to hinge the outcome of the war on a single person's decision. Maximum ego boo for vicarious identification, in other words.

There isn't a real conflict within Sisko, because the premises make any other choice insane. No, conflict isn't drama, choice is drama. Sisko has no choice, therefore is not a signifiicant moral agent.

The conclusion is evidently supposed to be ironic, in that Sisko is not really supposed to be able to live with himself. But as an open ended serial, Sisko is able, easily, to live with himself, meaning that the character development in the episode is meaningless.

There's nothing to hate about In the Pale Moonlight aside from its reactionary politics and the absurd praise it receives. It's just another crap SF show.

Not me! I thought that it was a great- if not pivotal episode. It showcased Sisko (and Starfleet's) dilemmas at that time quite well. The scene at the end with Garak, as well as his closing lines and deletion of the log were some of the best moments of the series.